Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Committee staff (technical host)]: We are live.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. We're we're back to the House Judiciary Committee this Friday afternoon, March thirteenth, and and to brief recess. So we have a motion on the floor. This is just a straw poll. The motion was is to approve amendment draft number 3.1 to H six zero six. All those in favor, raise your hand or say aye. I think.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Aye. Coach? Aye.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So there's six. And to all those opposed, raise your hand. Okay. Six to five. I will now take a motion

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: The amendment was the piece we just put back in this morning by request. Right?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Yeah. Well, the the whole thing's an amendment. Oh, okay. Yeah. The whole thing is a strike hold. Right. Right. Right. I take a motion that we report H606. Are we having a discussion? Yeah, absolutely, after the motion. After the motion. Second. Open it for discussion.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Zach? Yeah. I mean, I guess I'll start. I I don't think it's probably a secret of it certainly isn't a secret to any of the committee members or the people in the room of what my concerns are with this bill. And I I do I I guess I wanna first thank the vice chair for his leadership throughout this process, and and he knows certainly my frustrations with the bill as currently written. I appreciate thank you, Nate. I appreciate the chair's willingness to add the petition back in. I also appreciate the chair allowing additional testimony, But my concerns do remain with the bill on face value of the constitutionality concerns around section three, and I I hope to work with our colleagues in the senate judiciary committee on that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I guess part of I guess I part of me,

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: chair, wants to give voice to maybe some of the frustrations that a lot of members of this committee had at the end of last year that we didn't feel heard, we didn't feel seen, we didn't feel that our concerns were being appreciated. There was no willingness to compromise Because in the conversation that we had last night, I made a very, I think, strong overture that if section three was removed from the bill, that you would have gotten far more support than you're gonna get today. And I know that you personally take great pride in running your committee in a very strong manner, reporting bills out as close to unanimously as you possibly can get them. I just think it is a missed opportunity and a shame that we can't get this closer to an eleven zero zero vote because of a lack of willingness to compromise on one section out of three. And I will say that I am very appreciative of you having the NRA, the National Rifle Association in here as well as the Federation and Gun Owners of Vermont. And I appreciate too you including language directly drafted by the NRA in the bill. So I do think that is a great hallmark of compromise to have the NRA's input considered and the committee gonna be voting well, some members of the committee voting in favor of the NRA's language when they vote in the affirmative for this bill. That being said, I just can't support this with section three in. I wish that we had more time. Wish that we had been more cautious and careful in the crafting of this. And with that, I will not be supporting the bill.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Barbara. Well, actually, before Barbara, just a couple of comments. So I appreciate it. I appreciate the questions that you've raised, the issues that you've raised that I think have made this bill, in fact, better. I think the idea of compromise is, yes, I always am trying to find compromise. But there sometimes are a point where you can't go any further. And I think that Section three is a critical component, in fact, probably the most important component of this bill that can do the most. And I definitely compromise a lot with Representative Donahue when she saw this language and she made suggestions. I had to work with Eric to put that into the amendment that I proposed. I put in the petition, which I think in and of itself is a good idea. But I mean, so compromise doesn't mean that you're gonna get everything. That means strike that section, but I really think it's very important. But I appreciate that we have been working together on this. And I've definitely, outside of committee or even in committee, discussions that happened before this bill was ever introduced, and then the input I received from many people out there, including from Chris Bradley as well, part of the compromise was I took out Section five. And the testimony the other day related to machine guns and rapid fire devices as a compromise again. And with all these compromises, I'm still not expecting any Republican. And I understand politically why you won't vote for this, and it's fine with me. But I just want it to be understood that despite the fact I wasn't gonna get any additional votes from this, I moved this bill a lot and really in favor of folks who wanna protect gun rights, which I do too. So in any event, I just went with that. But I do really appreciate how you've been working with me on trying to actually make this a better bill, even though you can't ultimately support that. And that happens. It happens all the people. Not now. Actually, not that often.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Well, think a Latin phrase comes to mind. It's, and it's the lone voice crying out in the wilderness. And I think that is a feeling that certainly a lot of us share in this room and in this building, that we are screaming out into the wilderness, and it just continues to fall on deaf ears. And again, Martin, I appreciate that you worked with the representative Donahue from Northfield on this, but you're also sitting across the table from five Republican counterparts as well, and it doesn't feel like our input was really heard in this. And I grant you the petition was already in the bill. It was removed, and then it

[Committee staff (technical host)]: was added back in.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So I understand that there's been give and take, and the art of good compromise is that both parties are gonna walk away not entirely satisfied, but it seems here that one party seems extremely satisfied and the other is still crying out into the wilderness.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think we're well, a couple things. I think we're far from satisfied. There's a lot of disappointment on this side of people who want to see strong as possible. And there's a huge difference between listening and being heard and that I'm gonna agree with everything you say. And to say that I have not and that this committee has not listened to all the various different views on this bill, including from all the members in here, is a disservice. That, I reject that part. So anyways, over to Barbara as far as discussion.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So I guess this wasn't going be part of what I originally said, but I often, I think all of us often feel like our voice is in third, because if Martin took every one of our individual requests, we'd probably jump out the window. I mean, you couldn't please us all. But I lobbied for things that never made the draft to begin with, including things that were really important to my constituents, the guns and bars, safe storage. Those didn't make it. When Section five came out, I was incredibly disappointed. However, I am supporting this bill, and think section three is what we heard from so many people could make a big difference. And I like that, again, we're not just putting in things that don't necessarily yield anything. We shouldn't be taking things that feel like we're taking away if it's not going to make us safer. And I do feel like this will make a difference. And I remain disappointed, and I will continue to be a voice on many other things too. But I think that's I guess I just want to say, as somebody in the Democrat side, often feels frustrating as well.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah. Thank you. I'll and I'll say, not as a Democrat or a Republican, but just as a person who lives in Vermont and wants everyone in our state to be as safe as possible, This is a public safety bill. It's a public safety bill that addresses pretty specific firearms related public safety issues. That's what it is. And I feel good about voting for a public safety bill. I feel disappointed about the things that aren't in here. And I think all we've done on this bill is take things out. How rare is it that something is introduced and we don't even talk about the as introduced version? We just go to the cut down version. I can't recall that happening in my time. And that was in response to concerns that were raised. So at the very start, something I really wanted, gun industry accountability, was removed. It happens. It happens. And I am still proud to vote for this bill as a public safety measure. And just so that we're all working with the same definition of compromise, the dictionary says, an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. I think that the process undertaken with this bill very clearly meets the definition of compromise.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Anything else?

[Committee staff (technical host)]: Yeah, just very briefly, one thing that just hasn't been mentioned, but I think is really good in this bill that I'm excited to vote for is that we are aligning some Vermont laws, federal law, which to me is very important, that there's consistency when it comes to regulation, and this bill is trying to do that. And in some ways, it's more narrowly focused than federal law is, which shows real intention in how this was drafted. So I'm gonna vote in favor of it, and I think that my constituents will appreciate that vote. And I appreciate all the work that was done on both sides to get the bill to where it's at now.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Anything else? I wasn't gonna say anything. I'll just say it real quick, that it's

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: not

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: it's not done. I mean, we we know it's not done. This is only half the process right now. And anybody who has still has issues with the bill, whether it may be gun owners or maybe the sportsmen or or or whoever, there's still potentially some work that'd be done done on the other bodies.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: A lot of time. I guess one

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: thing to pick up on what Ian said. I really do also appreciate that we are able to take these public safety measures on well trod constitutional ground. By largely mimicking tested federal statutes, we give ourselves an advantage, a leg up constitutionally. And anytime we can do that, I think it's well worth doing that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, the clerk can call the roll. Arsenault?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes. Dolan? Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Goodnow? Yes. LaLonde? Harvey?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. Hawaii? No. Oliver? No. Rachelson? Yes. Christie?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: You're you're mute. You're muted,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: coach. Yes. Verdict? No. Hello? Yes. And Angela has agreed to report the bill, so she will get that over to Yeah, thanks. Of course. So thank you, everybody. That's been an interesting process. So we're going to move to the miscellaneous bill. Everybody should have it on your now, the question is, what does the committee desire now? So my understanding, is the language compatible through this bill this is threeeleven what's the date today? '13. The language that was from H5, whatever that the name is?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In 06/29? 06/29.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Is that in here somewhere? Tiny somewhere? Yes. Could

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you just point to that real quick? Yep, that is section five, which starts on the very bottom of page eight. All right, so just On the top

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: of page nine. That's fair. Oh, no one was here for the miscellaneous. Are

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: we only looking at what's been added?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's up to folks. Has anything been taken out? Nothing's been taken out. The only key thing is what Eric's been talking about. And the thing that's been added, we went over separately. We had a bill. We had testimony on eight thousand six twenty nine and decided that we could not have so many bills going over to the Senate, that it was appropriate for him here. So we had separate testimony. We put that bill in here. So that's an addition. And then there's an effective date change, which Eric can explain. Those are the only two things,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: my understanding, Eric, since what what we reviewed? Yes. There's one cross reference two cross references that were wrong. Okay. So if you could go over And I changed. Yes. So those So from the beginning Okay, here we go. So as I mentioned, I noticed You may recall that one of the things that went on in this bill was that the profits from crime subchapter of current law was moved from the Victims Compensation Board statutes to the Attorney General statutes. So during the course of that being moved, a couple of internal cross references, I neglected to update because they were no longer correct. That's on page two, line 14, and page three, line 12. So those are just technical cross reference changes that were corrected. So that's one change. Looped them, grouped them together as one change. Yeah, I had noticed that actually. Just And you're careful with it. To be honest, I wasn't gonna mention because if there wasn't gonna be any other changes, I was like, let's fix that in a sec. Changing other things anyway, might as well do it. Impossible. Right, right. So the second one, as the chair mentioned, starts, it says page eight through page 10.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: At the bottom of page three, bottom

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of page three. Yeah, that's just the title, but that's the southern dividend. Basically, this was a bill, eight six twenty nine, which you took testimony on last week. Michelle, it's the Dallas bill, she did the walkthrough. Again, you had a number of people from the Bar Association Family Law section. And the essence of it is that generally speaking, when you're an action to renew a judgment has an eight year statute of limitations, but the idea here is in response to a Supreme Court decision to have particular rules for how to file a function for a court action, particular types of family court action, things like related to money or property, that sort of thing. So it's kind of a carve out for the general eight year statute of limitations for renewal of judgments and with some specific processes for family division judgments. I think

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you probably Yeah, we heard

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: about it than I did. I wasn't here that day.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Think the key was that there's a lot of language that the concept is fairly straightforward and there's no controversy on it.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I guess you'd go to the last list of the- Yeah, just before, since we're on page nine anyway, if you look at page eight, because that's what the last thing is gonna refer to. Page eight, which is section four, which starts over on the bottom page seven. So this section is unchanged, but I'm just pointing it out because it's related to the change in the effective date. This section has to do with the dissemination of criminal court records. Remember the change here is that right now under current law, their access via the internet for criminal case records is prohibited. But the change is that for criminal case records, that won't be prohibited anymore. But this is page eight, lines nine to 10, the procedures for how access via the internet via criminal case records is gonna be set forth in rules promulgated by the court. And what Judge Zone pointed out was that that's a time consuming process to have rules proposed and promulgated. And so that the effective date for that section,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that would be helpful to

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have it be different. So that is section four of the bill. So then if you turn to page 29, you'll see the effective date, a little bit of a few words as an added. It says, this act shall take effect on passage, except that section four, the one we just looked at regarding the rules, shall take effect on 07/01/2026. So that's got a little bit longer, thought. That's enough, he said. That's what he asked for. All

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: right, so I guess the question, assume people don't want to go back over it. Are gonna second by something, please? No, I'm not. I'm not just So I assume that we don't need to go over each section. I guess the question I would have with people is you're broken. Good job. I mean, I'm missing a few people. The question is whether there are any problems with this or if we're ready to Yes, Barbara. So I don't know, but I assume many of

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: us got these emails today from about adding a section, which I know sections can be added. So I'm assuming children's advocacy organizations. I've looked

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, at so there's a couple of things. I had received an email, I neglected to get back to the person because I looked at it. And it's more of an education. And their legislative council, I don't know what they want, if anything, if they're gonna put it in a miscellaneous bill. And I meant to get back to the person who reached out to me on that, that this wasn't really appropriate for, and I talked to Eric about this, we agreed it wasn't really appropriate for this miscellaneous bill. Thank you. Can definitely get back to them. And again, I apologize.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: No, that's okay, I just

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: wanted to was Crystal Black is a producer.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I started hearing from multiple people.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, but she's one originally, and I just dropped the ball and told her what I've done with that.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Okay, thank you. And Beth is going

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to check into whether or not it might go into I think my hands are up. Beth Lowe's going

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to do it, but I'm sure the person was advocating for it. And they may be watching. Yeah, yep. Well, I sure would like to vote to take care of this.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Do you want a motion? Well,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: mean, the people that are out of the room were the people that were saying, Let's get going. Right? It feels like

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, this will happen. You know,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But we should be consistent.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay, fine. So am I gonna, is Tom? Yeah, he's right there, I think. And where did Zach? He's right there. They're both right there. Okay, all right, that's great. I mean, we

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: can start with the office.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I want people to hear about your emotion. I'm in a hurry, not really in a hurry. We're doing fine. You've already killed my afternoon, so

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Jesus.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, let's not be in a hurry. Let's get

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think that was the roll call. Oh my god. And all the questions we had on third reading, that's why.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: I know.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You loved I did

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: love it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Mean, I was delighted to see the floor for Zachary Harvey. Well, just I didn't know I texted anybody, but if want to text them directly, it'd So since I have a couple more people in here, Tom. And Tom, did you have any objections to any of the parts? I wasn't going to look. In the past, when we've done this, I'll go through every section to get everybody grieving on, but this one seems so innocuous that Oh, wow. We didn't do that today, but we've done it through the course of building. Yeah, haven't heard any objection. Window opens now, you know. Do we need

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to hear anything more on this joint tenancy?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Can you summarize? I will be able to at some point. When do we What's that? What do they go to report? It's on notice for two days. I don't think there's any money in this. On notice for two days? Yeah, because it's a committee bill. Oh. I don't think that there's any money on it, but it seems often I think that they find some money.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I know. Someone's gonna freeze on it, we have to pay for that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Creditors claim I mean, so Oh no, I take that back. I get the ways and means. There is a ways and means. Yeah, it has to go to ways and means. There was a change that there would be a change in it was one of the cut that out. It's one of the things that is going to lead to less it's the reinstatement Trying to fund it.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. The fees to reinstate your license. Fees to reinstate

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: your Because it's automatic. It will be automatically reinstated. There's it affects the revenues. That's why guess I will.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: There were fees involved.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It it could be ten zero one. I mean, I'm not gonna hold up on it. I I found it.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: You can't leave it open. Yeah.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Because we need to get to the mutual tender one because there's some language that needs to look at that. Will take a motion. Wait. Let let me see. How what's the motion for a committee bill? I I should have a great frivolity, baby.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: They have to hold hands and sing a song.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, can say the other one is good, too. That's a front bill, too. I guess I just should say I'll make a motion that we report committee bill draft 2.1, the draft request is 20 six-one 161 favorably. I move that we commit.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: What he said. So good.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Also known as the miscellaneous Also known as the miscellaneous judiciary bill. Thank you. AKA. Any discussion? I haven't seen any of the please call. Yes. I know, he's fine.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So we wait for one member, but we're not

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: waiting for another? I think a couple of people have texted, and I told them that we're voting. You could leave it open, right? No, no.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Until we do the other day.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I need to call that number as well.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Taxi. I

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: feel a certain level of responsibility here, but we do something one way and not enough. I'm not comfortable.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: I don't see it, but I can

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean, so if somebody leaves and is unavailable, am I going to hold up on the last day before crossover doing our business? I mean, I can have that motion withdrawn and we could But I don't know. I'm not gonna lose other people.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I'm not trying to start anything,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean, we could've got ahold

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: of Coach on that last vote, we would've waited.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Stepped out and make a call.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It would be the same person making the

[Committee staff (technical host)]: The only difference was that Coach was on here. Then he having

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: was having There were technical difficulties going on right there. And Brian was having the last topic. And so, Kenneth, I alright. So we will

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I just wanna know what's right and what's wrong. I'm the clerk. I feel I have a certain responsibility, and I'm just So I can

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: have the motion withdrawn for now?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No. I just have an opinion that Yes. We did wait for coach probably thirty seconds. He was his picture was up there. It went off. His camera was shut off, and he he came right back on. When when asked whether he was asked to or not, I don't know if anybody got hold of him to come back, but he came right back. And I I don't think it's this isn't a such a controversial bill that

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Speak to the devil and he shall Yeah.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So you don't. Right? Yeah. No. No. That's fine.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: So we're good. So do I need to renew the motion?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So so this is a motion for passing the this next speaker.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Alright. No changes were made by the

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No changes. Wouldn't put anything past anyone. No. Thank you. Arsenault?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Dolan? Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Bruno? Yes. Will sign it. Yes. Barbies? Yes. Malay?

[Alicia Malay (Member)]: Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oliver? Yes. Jason?

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Christie? Christie?

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yes.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Correct. Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, yes. And Barbara's agreed to head this up, but it will be one more week past. I bet you even wanna Well,

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I was just gonna say, I know I missed discussion, but I just wanna thank the chair from a very personal standpoint and the committee for their support, because there was a section of this bill that was deeply personal to me and my family. And it means a

[Committee staff (technical host)]: lot to me on a very personal level.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I just want to say thank you

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: to everyone. Is that a section you want

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: to report? I would very much like

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to report. Says section eight. All the sections have the sections moved.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Oh, they may have changed, but I'll The The stocking section.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. I just wanted

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: to say thank

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you It's very definitely fit into this. So we have two that are no, it's just Barbara because she's gonna be the lead. I've left nine nine parts. Thank you, Eric. You you Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You are. Yeah. That's very serendipitous. We

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: were moving to $8.06 $4.02, which probably of all the bills today, despite the fund that we had with the gun bill, has kind of the most moving or contagious based on the testimony that we had yesterday, I guess it was. I If I break it. Thank you. So Eric can go over the changes, and I can go over I don't think everybody was in here when we were kind of trying to get the directive or what we should do with the next version of this, but trying simplify this as much as possible and do as much as we can in the bill, given the testimony. Went through, whoever was here, it's online obviously, that this is what I'm going to suggest to Eric, or that this is what I think we should suggest. And everybody in the room at the time was fine, that these were the things I should suggest with this version. So I just wanted to know where this came from, and we can discuss the individual changes when Eric goes over. So Eric, over to you. Yes, thank you.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Moving along now to h six forty two, activating to youthful offender proceedings. I'm hopeful that what everyone has in front of you now is a version that shows some highlights. Yes. You'd see it right on page one, the first highlight. And this is a version that will show the highlights between draft 2.1 and draft 1.1. And as the chair indicated, section one is actually struck in its entirety. It's just I didn't use all that yellow to show you this, but you can see that originally it contained a provision about acknowledgement of harm by the youth. So it sort of goes into this finding that the court has to make about public safety, whether or not someone is gonna be granted a dutiful offender status, terms in the first instance on whether or not public safety would be protected, and the court has to make a finding. Original proposal of the bill had been to add to the list of factors that the court has to consider when it makes that public safety finding, whether or not the youth has acknowledged harm caused by their conduct, proposal, and the new version of the amendment in front of you now is to strike that section entirely so we just go back to existing law. So so and I'll

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: just explain the testimony. And I didn't hear all the testimony on that. But it seemed like a very problematic section. We tried to fix it with some language regarding the full fender that would be used against them for impeachment. But we heard from, well at least when I was here, I didn't hear the earlier testimony like that. This was probably unworkable. It wasn't like you weren't going to get the acknowledging So that's why some large suggest that

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: we strike that. Maybe unconstitutional is what?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Hayes. Kate Hayes said that there might be some

[Committee staff (technical host)]: Judge Hayes.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Hayes. Current Judge Hayes, right? Retired Judge

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I feel like

[Committee staff (technical host)]: you always call him Judge.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah, I'm just trying to remember. Anyway, yeah, so that's a constitutional issue that was raised. Right.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: With the changes we have and Kim being here, I don't know if you prepared or not, maybe give a 10,000 foot view of Yeah, yeah, let's have Eric go through the rest of the I did ask him to be here in case there were questions. Okay. Yeah. No. Just looking for 10,000 for people. Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That would be change one strike. Section one, its entirety. So section

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Changes, but I'm real quick. Yeah.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Please do. So I got the highlighted here.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I just wanna make sure we're talking about, 03:12 or twenty six. Right? 04:34PM?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Thank you. You got it. So that section is proposed to come out of the bill entirely. So section two, which starts on page four, which would then become section one of the bill, first change was accepted. So in this section, you remember this has to

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: do with the hearing that the

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: court has to have. There's a motion filed to revoke youth offender status because of a probation violation. So the proposal, you'll recall over on page five, is to allow the family division. Because remember, under existing law, the youthful offender jurisdiction in the family division only lasts till age 22. So that can create problems when a probation violation comes close to the time of the youth's 20 birthday, for example. And what is the court gonna do then if they may move jurisdiction over to youth before they can resolve the revocation issue. So the idea of the language that you see on page five with a slight change, which is just they are instead of a modification, because this is really revocation issue that the person is subject, the youth is subject to a revocation motion because of a probation violation, it allows the banded division to extend jurisdiction past the youth's 20 birthday. That's just the fact. Just one more we change. Yeah.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And I had I I didn't bring it up yesterday, but I I had a concern about whether or not DCF would have the the resources to handle to handle this. And from what I heard yesterday that I don't think there's gonna be any issue as far as them having ability to handle any even if it's it's not even really accurate.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right? Just one time period.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Can I just clarify one thing that So everybody Eric, I just want to make sure I understand? Even though you only highlighted the title, you're saying those pages are going away? Yes.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't highlighted the title to kind of remind us. Okay. What that means is, because the only change in this section that was made in the bill, which is on page two, line 16 to 20, That change is being proposed. The proposal is don't make that change anymore. So that means there's no changes that's gonna be made to this section of laws, the whole section of the bill will be struck.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But we're not striking I mean, it's not repealing that section of the law. Correct. That section of the

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: law is still on the bus. It is. And it will remain

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So I just wanna make sure that's super clear to everyone that's because Quick point about that, though.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: There is one other change, but I'm assuming it's a technical change. Is it

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I have a capitalization.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Requirement is CI. We're not They just don't do that right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can do that in the stat rep process. Okay. Yes?

[Committee staff (technical host)]: Yeah. Back on page five. And I missed some of the testimony on this, so if it was answered, I apologize, so I'll keep it very brief. Rotation of youthful offender status is pending pursuant to the section. That's lines five and six on page five.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then family division may extend

[Committee staff (technical host)]: its jurisdiction beyond the youth's 20 birthday. Does the pending motion for revocation have to be pending the full time for the jurisdiction to be extended?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, I think that the operative moment is gonna be when the CAMA division makes the decision to extend. So it's at that moment that-

[Committee staff (technical host)]: So we've got the pending motion

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: for revocation. We then get the hearing on the revocation. Now there's

[Committee staff (technical host)]: an opportunity. Okay. We can extend this out. And that's how it's being okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That makes sense. Great. Thank you.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Another question. So modification or revocation still exists and is referenced, but it no longer exists for subsection two?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, it's not that it doesn't exist, but I think that's what you're getting. It's that for purposes of subdivision two, which is a particular option of the family division, when a revocation motion is filed. The family division's gonna have this option to say, well, it looks like for whatever reason, I'm gonna suggest that it's probably gonna be in a case where the youth is particularly close to age 22, that they can extend.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But not for significant I mean, it's interesting because there could be significant modification.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, you mean why is modification being stripped?

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's just a matter of, it's a motion for revocation is when the ability of the family division is gonna kick in. So if you're the state's attorney or somebody, and you want to have the family decision have that option, probably would want to file a motion for modification instead of a motion for modification, because they could always make decide themselves, I guess, whether they're gonna file one way or the other.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So while we're on this issue, if Kim could identify herself for record and weigh in on that, because I can see

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: that you want to. Yes, thank you. Kim McManus, Department of Access Attorneys and Chairs. Yesterday, Judge Someday pointed out that there is a mechanism to motion to modify, and we do that all fast on juvenile probation. But if we're now extending jurisdiction, we wouldn't modify at that point. It would just be either discharge or revocation. After '22, we wouldn't be modifying their probation because

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So it might not be because I was thinking like, if somebody is in substance abuse treatment and it seemed clear that they might continue to need that or something, ask that they'd like to know that wouldn't Well, only because

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: of the age. This section is only about extending Right.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But you wouldn't extend it so that somebody keeps having access to a service that they might not That

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: would be that. Okay.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Because there'll be the issue of when does the jurisdiction end? It's not passed away too. All right, thank you. All right, any other questions on that, Ben?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On the same page for a moment, just because this will transition us into the next change. You look on page, still on page five, lines 13 to 14. So they're having this hearing, right? When there's a motion to either modify or revoke the youth's probation, there's this list in statute of factors that the court Sorry, there's a list of options that the court has if they find that the has violated. So they can, you know, they can maintain the status change the conditions of probation, they can revoke the full offender status, transfer the case back to the criminal division, etcetera. There are those listed options. So let me turn over on the page six. This next subdivision, subdivision two starts on line six. This is the list of factors that the court will have to consider when it's making that determination. In other words, what am I gonna do? Am I gonna keep the person on youthful offender status with some modified conditions, or am I gonna revoke WIO status, send it back to the criminal division? When making that decision, you've got three factors, B, and C, page six that the court has to consider. And there's just some technical change to B and C, really, instead of saying the youth is amenable to treatment, whether the youth continues to be amenable, which makes sense, because at that point, there already was a finding when they became a youth offender in the first place, that they were amenable to treatment, but now they violate it. So it's really the question is, are they still amenable to treatment after that? Similar idea. Oh, actually, remember the discussion of whether it makes sense to say sufficient or insufficient. And I think the conclusion of the committee was whether there are sufficient services in both departments to provide to the youth. And then a separate issue is subsection D, which is, you remember what happens? Okay, if somebody's filed this motion for revocation or or sorry, yeah, modification, And the youth doesn't show up. That's a circumstance you're talking about here. So it's section d. And the previous version had specifically said, well, in that case, court shall summon the youth to appear before it or issue an order for their apprehension. I think after testimony, the committee heard there's an existing statute, statutory process that you could reference that may do the same thing. So what the proposal is it changes it to May, first of all, line 13, but not a requirement that the court do this, that there's a failure to appear, but the court may, and then down the line 16, issue an order pursuant to sub subdivision, sorry, subsection 5,108 C for an officer to pick up the youth and bring the youth to court. So that's just mimics the language in that section, which I'll read to you, which is also in the juvenile probation statute, which says gives the court some authority. And in that case, court has authority to issue an order for an officer to pick up the child and bring the child to court. So it's just taking that same language and saying, the court can do that too, specifically in this situation, if youth has not shown up at the probation hearing. So that's that piece. And then very last thing, it's on page nine, just the effective date from onpassage is July

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think I've had to see. Okay. Any other for Eric? Tim, why don't you join us and

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: McManus, Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs. I'm only going to speak to the change on page six as far as the cost reference to subsection 5.08. And I fully appreciate Judge Zoning saying very clearly that his reading of 5,108 is that judges can issue a warrant in family vision. That was very clear. It's our position that not all judges interpret 5,018 to give them that ability. And this specifically is giving the ability to pick up the youth and bring them to court, which we already have that. The judges are already ordering that. And we had advocated for the ability to issue an arrest warrant being explicit in this section. As amended, I think we're going to run into the same issue of having differing opinions moving forward. We can see how it goes. It could be an educational issue amongst the judiciary, and maybe that results it with this language. But we think some judges will still read that they can only issue a pickup order for useful offenders. And as we mentioned yesterday, that does not help us with out of state. We've to have ran out of state, remove themselves from our state. That's where solution to that. I feel like

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: there was some discussion where somebody came up with a solution to that.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: It was for under 18, I think. The dust compact.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: That's why judge Hayes talked about she's involved with the compact, the interstate compact. And, again, yes, over

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: She did mention that interstate compact.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Right. And the issue there, as she said, is depending on the other state's interpretation, if someone's 19 or 20, may not view them as a youth. They're supposed to be the definition that is in the state of custody. But again, I think our suggestion would be to have that we can issue a pickup order or an arrest warrant for a useful offender over the age of 18. And we understand that that's not possible at this time, but I'll continue to bring it up on the other side, but we just wanted to point that out.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, was I think there's needed some additional discussion and perhaps testimony about this concept, from what I was gathering yesterday, on the concept of the arrest warrant. And this is supposed to be compromised, but I think that this it's flagged now definitely as a piece that the senate can

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yeah. And we're happy to keep discussing But we did we did just wanna appreciate the effort. And again, fully respect Judge Zawney being very clear about the family court's ability to issue these. But when you read 501,008, it's primarily about ordering the parentguardian or custodian to a hearing. And then there's a small there's one clause of sorry, it's mentioned twice. But it's then, if that doesn't work, you can order a pickup for a child.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So let me ask you this. And let me, I guess, ask Eric as well along to asking this. If we struck pursuant to subsection 501A0E and just had issue an order for an officer to pick up the news and bring the news to court, does that get rid of that confusion if we're looking at five zero eight one. I'm supposed to do all these other things first. Just stay, in other words, get rid of pursuant to subsection five zero one(eight) of this title. Would that help or that would make a difference?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I don't think so. It doesn't help our sticking point that we don't believe this will be clear to all the judges sitting in Family Division that they can issue an arrest warrant for useful offenders. I think it's clear right now that the pickup order, that's clear and it's referencing back to five zero one(eight). It's fine. But the next step is where we're still going to advocate for. But again, we understand if a change can't be made now, but we'll keep talking about it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. I think it probably you know, but it's hard to go ahead. Given

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: the set of circumstances, it's highly likely that the person's not with the parents.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: If it's this subset of over 18

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Then we're talking about they may they may flee the so a pickup order is not going to work unless if the person is in HCF City, then the compact will allow them to be picked up. But if they're not considered a used to pull a fender in the other state, we can't take them on the pickup or without a warrant. And that's definitely not 5,108.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Fair enough. So I guess just at this point, I think there's a couple of really great things in this bill. That one apparently might hit the mark. I think the provision we have on page five in the subsection as far as extending the jurisdiction, I've been hearing about that since before offenders started. And I think that's that alone, because I think the important stuff is that's I that useful.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: No, I think that addresses one of the issues that we raised for you all. And I think it will help in some of the cases. And not to beat a dead horse, but having that coupled with an arrest warrant being clear is, again, for that 18 population that would potentially age out, that 20 year old, the 21 year old that we want to get that again, want to finish the process. The arrest warrant, having that be explicit, just helps tie those together. Without that, it's a little bit of half of a sandwich. But again, if you move forward with this If you move forward in your conversations with your counterparts on the Senate, that you're open to this idea of being still continued and talked about.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, oh yeah, no, definitely. I'm flagging some things on various bills that like for the miscellaneous bill, there were a couple of things that people wanted to put in there. I just felt too late to take it to the Senate, and I'll flag it for the Senate that there are those two things that we didn't quite get to. And there are a couple of things that were in the animal cruelty bill that obviously need a little bit more work, and I'm going to flag that for them. And we'll flag this. But I guess the other point is that I think the addition of the criteria and verification of the criteria are so there's at least two really good things here. The third means further work. It's kind of where we can see it's not an open theory, but I guess it's a good kind of answer. Yeah. And

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: to just highlight the being able to speak at the consideration hearing. The victims are

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: really important too, right?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: One of the most important aspects here, to clean that up. And we greatly appreciate that.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: A question that I didn't get to ask you, Kim, the other day that I did ask a couple of other witnesses. And it pertains to page six, lines nine through 11, the Division C. DCF, Lindy, who's speaking before DCF, said that they would support removing this criteria or a consideration. And Tucker from GPS just said that the focus should be He wasn't straight out supporting or

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: removing it, but said the

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: focus should be on the youth's behavior in the process of recognizing that we are a ways into the process at this point. Barbara was expressing, I don't like the subjectivity that this introduces, perhaps unnecessarily, and places potential blame on the youth for state or system failure.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I agree.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: what would your department think of removing that? And what would your department think of removing that?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, I wouldn't be able to speak for the whole department right in this moment. I don't think it would If removed it because you were concerned that that would be a weight on the scale against, I can understand that. I think most implicit in B, of whether the use of medical treatment or rehabilitation, you're going to be talking about what treatment or rehabilitation, which ties to what service is available. So we're going to be discussing what can we do. If the argument on either side is keep them and you pull offender, Okay, what can we do for them? What is available? We do need to talk about what's available.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. So I think your point actually makes my point as well, that it would come up. It would have to come up. But with this provision in here, it's placing the blank. It creates an ounce that's like, well, here's what this youth needs, but we just don't have it.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I hear that, and I think it's interesting. I mean, it's also stating in reality that if you're saying, oh, we can treat this person, but we don't have the place to treat them.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Well, hope is that the language I'm sorry, just to complete the thought, because I know where you're going. And without this language, process might be, here are the needs. We don't have the services. We need to find someone who does. We need to find a way to get these needs met rather than, here's what this youth needs. We don't have the services, so we should abandon shit.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I don't know if that's how removing that would lead to that conversation.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Can I ask a quick question on this? This is a criteria for whether somebody gets put into people. In consideration,

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: yes. But there was considerable conversation the other day about how, with both DCF and TPS, saying that the focus should be, at this, at a revocation hearing, the focus should be on the youth behavior in the process so far. And

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: not be like, oh, we didn't have the money to create that program, so we can't serve this kid in a meaningful offender, we have to put them in jail. That's what's the reality. I think, and I

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: apologize, I think the scenario of how this would be discussed at a revocation hearing is consideration hearing happened, the disposition happened, youth is going to meet with this counselor, is going to do this group, is going to the z. At revocation, this counselor didn't work. They weren't engaging. Is there another counselor who can do this type of treatment? Or is there a different group if they're not doing well in the group? You can see how that is the conversation. If the youth has blown through all the options, DCF has tried everything, that is where we had all the services, but the youth has not been successful with all of them. I'm not sure if removing this would have you look outside of the Department of Children and Families, because as I said, they outsource a lot of this, almost all of it, as far as the actual direct services. And again,

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: it feels like it could be like, well, we have three things we offer, but if kids need something else, our state needs to figure out how to serve our kids. It's not like, this is the way we teach English, and if you can't learn that way, you're We want people to be successful, we don't wanna give an out to I just feel like the path of peace persistence will take over.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I'm not sure removing this gets you to where you wanna go. That's the only question mark. Yeah, I

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: got it. I think I'm just I'm looking for believing strongly as I do that words matter and, you know, we then we signify things by what we say and don't say. And so I just didn't know if there might be a chance that it could signify that the hope is that I really appreciate the comments from DCF that the focus should be on how the youth has or has not been engaging with the process so far and less so on the services that are or are not available because we have or have not invested in them.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Or revamped them in a long time.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah, so I'm just struggling a bit with that. If it remains in, I think at a minimum, it should be there are continued sufficient services, as Judge Davenport suggested, because we'll be protected by continuing to treat the youth. The youth continues to be amenable, we think just for consistency saved. But it's on that spectrum of care or not, not dropping into the start of a process.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you. So do you be fine with continued? Yes. So did you catch it, Eric? Yeah. If you could anything else?

[Committee staff (technical host)]: So it's just going to be there

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: are are

[Committee staff (technical host)]: Can I just speak in I don't really want to get into debate, but No, no, go? I just want to bring us back to what this section is doing, which is it's asking the court to consider things. And so I do think it's important that the court is considering the services and the system that this youth is in and whether it's able to satisfy and sort of achieve what it needs to achieve. But if we're talking about where we're at as a revocation hearing, and we should be thinking, I really think the court should be considering that when it's making that kind of determination. And I understand the counterargument that has to do with a lack of investment in a system or in services, but the problem is we're trying to determine whether what we have is actually serving youth. And I do want to push back, Barbara, that a revocation of a youthful offender of status does not mean the youth goes to jail. It moves it out of the youthful, out of the family court,

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: but then it's adjudicated in the criminal division, and there are many ways that that resolves. So I should say it gives them a permanent criminal record. It has ramifications that are big. It could result in jail. But I also was going to say we just passed in the animal welfare bill. We know that we don't have prevention or education classes yet, and it's been identified as a need. And we put in some language that's like, should there be approved programs? So I hate to sort of close the door for what's needed. I mean, if judges are like, We need anger management programs in Spanish for kids or something, the judge should be able to order that and we should figure out how to get that.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And maybe there's room because it's a consideration. It's

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. One of the

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I think I'm probably trying to solve for something much bigger than the removal of this language can actually do, but feeling very unable to actually make those bigger changes, here's the attempt at TV ten anyways.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Can hear you. Okay. So I'm sorry. Thank you for that. And and we're gonna have you back momentarily on one seventy one, but

[Committee staff (technical host)]: so we're gonna get another draft against.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. He's gonna update the draft with that. They're continued.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll email it to these new, and then can you email that to the committee if I send it to you in ten minutes or so?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So it'll be the clean version that's taken out the It'll other

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be clean and it'll change the word

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: insufficient. Like continued sufficient. Right?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Is that right, Goslant? Or you could say continued sufficient services or continues to be sufficient services. We've done it two different ways up above the

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: How

[Committee staff (technical host)]: about hearing B? There continues to be sufficient services.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: There continues to be sufficient services.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: Unless we're assuming that there are already sufficient services. Maybe that doesn't make sense.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we're assuming

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: that the youth is already amenable.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, they've been on youthful conductor. They've been

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: in the process. So you're saying

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: it doesn't mean that they

[Committee staff (technical host)]: Sort of assumes that when it was ordered, there was So you take it Which maybe satisfies a bit of your concern. Yeah.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. We're gonna keep plugging away. Alright. So we're gonna go to one seventy one. Or are you did did you just decide on this language?

[Committee staff (technical host)]: I think we are

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you good with b? Are you good with the b language? Have a good weekend, guys. We yeah. We used

[Committee staff (technical host)]: to be. Yeah. Guess.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You got presented Nate sent to you guys. Maybe.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I can see it. It's makes a

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: lot better.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's like

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Great. That's better. Have been focusing on this thing.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I know. That could be great to have first.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Certainly love that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Over to Michelle. And there's one change from the version that we went over the other day.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. For the record, Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel. And the chair is correct. There's just one change from the last time you reviewed this, and that is a new subsection A. And so Representative Oliver had suggested some intense language in there. And so you'll see starting on line eight, the General Assembly finds it's in the best interest of victims and law enforcement officers to efficiently and thoroughly conduct independent investigations of any officer involved shooting in Vermont. It's the intent of the General Assembly to facilitate cooperation amongst the entities responsible for investigating an OIS so there's a well understood protocol for addressing them that instills public trust in such investigations and resolves investigations in a timely manner to provide certainty to all entities involved.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Are people good with that? Nothing good. Good? So we can have Todd Valos tell us whether he's All right, could you want to identify yourself for the record and Yeah, say identify themselves. Mine with that.

[Todd Daloz (Attorney General’s Office)]: For the record, it's Todd Valos from the attorney general's office. We're comfortable with that. Okay. Thank you.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And Kim, if you can join us because we haven't had any chance to wait in on this.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: We'd be real short.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's great. We love that. And just so everybody knows, we did have Tucker Jones in. I asked him to specifically send written testimony on what he thinks of the bill. He did. It's online. We can count that as witness testimony because I had a conversation, and he just was not gonna be able to make it when we had taken it out. So and just you go ahead, and then I'm going to actually read his response into the record, so it's But go ahead. Nice to see you.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Good to see you again. Kim McManus, Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs. I had all sorts of very smart thoughts for you on the original as introduced bill, but we are well past that. So I'm going to save those for the sake of time. We support this amendment to create this protocol. We greatly appreciate the addition of that language in subsection A to highlight the issue,

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: which was the

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: timeliness. And with that addition, all my other remarks don't

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: need to We be

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: will be happy to be part of this group and potential report in December.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So here is the email. Thank you, Sebastian. Here's the email that I got from Tucker Jones as his written testimony. He says, it's online, it's on our website, regarding H-one 171, Department of Public Safety believes the primary policy interest at play is the timeliness of criminal charging decisions involving officer involved shootings. To that end, the latest draft, as he was referring to draft 1.1, but it's the same exact language, includes a provision to evaluate the process of investigation and prosecutorial review of officer involved shootings to ensure timely criminal charging determinations and identify and address existing barriers to timely criminal charging determinations. That's the language. He says from the department's perspective, the timeliness of these investigations is the main issue that can address not just fairness to officers, but also the prolonged uncertainty for the families of the person who may have been injured or killed as well as the general public confidence and perceived legitimacy of oversight in light of the fact that these cases involve the government investigating the conduct of the government in place. If you need anything further on this, please let me know. I think that kind of hits that point, and there were no airplane metaphors involved. It was metaphor free. So maybe we should always invite Tucker to provide written text. I'm just kidding, Tucker. We like the metaphors. So there's that. Any other questions or concerns with respect to H171? He said that where? It was an email. It would be yesterday. It's on Thursday under Tucker Jones on the website.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. No, just real quick. Just want to thank all the interested parties for your concern and, you know, in listening to, you know, the witnesses we had and, you know, what they go through. And and with that being said, I'd like to make a motion to accept draft 2.1 of

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: h one seven one. So I assume that that motion is to approve the amendment draft 2.1 h one seven one. Exactly. Exactly. Second. There's a second. This is just a straw poll, then we'll have a second vote. All those in favor, raise your hand or say aye. Aye. Aye. Coach.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Aye.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay, perfect. And the next motion, that I take is that we see pork h one seven one favorable with amendment.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I got, then we gotta, I will make a motion to accept draft one two point one of H-one 171 with amendment.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Second. Second. Any discussion? I guess we already discussed it. You. Anything more? Anybody? Anybody? So It's much appreciated. Yes, thank you. It definitely is in the industry. I've heard. We're moving it along slowly but surely. Everything seems to be okay. Let's start the call. Arsenault?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Dolla?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Windham? Yes. Wolfsonite, yeah. Harvey? Yes. Hawaii?

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: She left.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: She absolutely. Yeah.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Oliver? Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Rachelson? Yes. Okay. Christie?

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Burditt? Yes. Bologna? Yes. And Vice Chair Burditt has agreed to, in fact wants to, either of you. Thank you everyone. So we're gonna move to H410. I see the light up.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Yes, Did we vote on the one before this?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, have one change coming, Coach. One final pretty small word change, but important word change. It's still coming. And Eric, as soon as he gets it, is going to email the clean version to Nate, and then we'll submit that and we'll go in on that. Oh, okay. The next one is that we're looking at H four ten. Are those new glasses too? Yeah. I have,

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you know

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's just that I go last year.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You gotta have, like, pairs of different places so that you can remember where they are. Otherwise, have to start wearing the granny necklace with them. You

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: refuse to do that?

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Not yet.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. Page four ten, if you could tell us where we

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are to

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: go really quickly. My understanding is that this is in part from the review that happened in corrections actually before break, if I'm not sure that they raised this kind of issue and this language addresses it. Right. I will Go ahead.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So for the record, Michelle Childs, Office of the Legislative Council, and we're looking at draft 4.2 of committee to follow amendment for H-four 10. I will start out by saying that I appeared before House Corrections yesterday. I walked through this language as it appears now with them. They were supportive of this language and wanted me to convey that to everybody. So the change really is in the definition for recidivism. And I wasn't in the hearing that I think they had initially raised some issues, but it was about how do you manage the clock when you're trying to calculate recidivism. So you remember that in this field, what you're doing is you're really simplifying the definition and calculation for recidivism because you have a really super complex definition currently that's in Title 28 that you're repealing in this proposal. And so in your new chapter in Title 13, you're creating a new definition. And it's kind of just a more plain language understanding for what folks think of recidivism, which is that you're convicted of one crime and then you are later convicted of another crime. But then you've got to figure out where are those points that you're doing the calculation because they're doing it. You're asking for annual reports. You're asking for certain types of calculations. And so this hasn't changed from the previous version. The date of the recidivism event is the date of arraignment for the subsequent offense. Because when they're looking at the records, the offenses are all kinds of different dates. But they can clearly look from the records and see the arraignment date in the files and have that data. And then what's new is the highlighted language starting on line 14. The clock for calculating recidivism shall begin on the date an individual is either released from incarceration or the date when an individual is sentenced to a non custodial sentence. So in terms of that first sentence or that first conviction, if they're sentenced to any type of incarcerative sentence, then the date that they are released starts the clock. So if you're doing a three year look back or a five year look back or something like that, that's the date you use. However, if they receive probation or something like that, and it's not incarcerative, then that date of sentencing is the date that you use to do the calculation. And also, you might recall that in the definition, it previously had something that said that recidivism shall be calculated with a three and a five year look back. And I've moved that down to the recidivism annual report, which is on page two, because that's really kind of what it's focused on. And that's just with annual report, but we kind of want to leave the general definition of recidivism a little broader, right? Because the idea is that you're creating this new chapter and you're gonna be adding things and doing different things. And that for the purposes of these annual reports, it's a three and a five year snapshot. But you don't wanna put that three and five year up in the definition section.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What? We've probably discussed this.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: I mean, the security we're not concerned about reoffending wilderness or anything. Because we're looking at frequently. I

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: thought the same thing. Then it's like, that, I mean, we could somehow put it in here, but it just really overcomplicates. I know that does happen a lot.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: And on the street. It's one of the most common thing. That's why we have people with five dockets. Well, do you

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: mean by on street? That's that they're on probation, so they're Yeah, they would on

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: street or be on probation or parole and reattracting. That's we'll capture that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, that's common. So instances where they're incarcerated and then they usually commit something while incarcerated, that they might not be well, yeah, does have and we can capture that separately if we want a report on that. Can specify that. But it kind of just That's fine. So I did think I at least was thinking a little bit about that and he thought.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Absolutely great. Karen and Benin?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I agree. Remember us having

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: haven't. We have talked about it, but I think this is to simplify it somewhat. It can become. I

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: thought that, you know, with the work that we have CRG do anyways, they can disaggregate the data, you know, as we specify. So, you know, that's that to Tom's point, that's where we can pick it up, I think.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, can, I can actually, when we talk, when CRG is working on this report, it's like, can you have like the subset in the report of people who may have insiduated while they were incarcerated? You know, and the

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: same thing with what Judge Hardy and Judge Hayes were talking about in the earlier bill with the youthful offender, you know, that's a, you know, their data there just says it's it's a really strong functioning program, you know. So, you know, data is strong on recidivism in both situations.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Karen and then Ian. I

[Committee staff (technical host)]: was hoping for more time to think.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So that's the last thing we need.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: That's fine. Yeah. So two things. One, I actually would say that people who commit crimes while they are still incarcerated are still in a time when we're not considering them finished with their current sentence, that's not recidivism because they have been

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: convicted. And so that's a different question. Yeah, and it's a question we could

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and the question we ask,

[Committee staff (technical host)]: but if we're talking about we're trying to define

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That would depend on the definition. What's that?

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Well, I mean, if they're serving the sentence, that would depend on their definition. Think

[Committee staff (technical host)]: if we're talking about people We don't even get down this road too far. Just like if we're talking about people who are incarcerated, they're going through programming, they're doing these things, they are basically in their carcerative sentence and then they commit another crime. I would argue that that's not recidivism because they haven't completed their initial So they done it once and then offended again. And that's our question that we're looking for.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Because we wait before they're done and they reoffend us.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: You know what I mean?

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Actually,

[Committee staff (technical host)]: the one I'm more curious about is, I don't remember if we talked about this, but with presumptive parole, what we are saying here is that when someone is on a partisan sentence and the moment DOC puts them on parole, that it's from that date that we're going

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to run it from. So they're on parole. Oh, they're out.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: So that's what we're good with.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, well, they're released from incarceration. Incarceration means they're behind the bar. Yeah, I think there's another way to perfect that. Yeah, and that we're good with that. Yeah.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Okay. Clarity is key.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I was just gonna say, I appreciate that point.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For me, it is the public safety piece. Not that we shouldn't be concerned about other things that are happening inside the incarceration, but

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I feel like we're also trying to

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: look at it at the public safety in the community piece of it. And so that's why I feel comfortable with it when somebody's out in the community, if they commit another crime. That's an concern. Totally.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It definitely works.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: So

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: are we ready to any questions on this or are we ready to vote this one? Next from April. No, I see that. We're just meeting this with Angela.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna start locking you on.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's a good idea. We're so close. So so can I ask the folks who are already who are gonna be reporting a bill to make sure you're sending the correct version to the court's office and Nigel and you have the vote and you say the right thing? I think all of these are savable with amendments. Are they not different? There's a committee bill. They do those a little different. Tell them it's going be different. Mine's gone. And if you can copy me too, but okay. Done. I tried to finish the tone there. Because I just wanna I'm gonna confirm with the hear my own complaint. Right. Do we know where Angela went? I did not see her

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: out there. I messaged her.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: You gotta draw the line somewhere.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thanks. Okay. I'll go with this. Coach, is Angela with you? Thank your you proposal. You're all stuck here until You're dating. I

[Committee staff (technical host)]: just forwarded it to everyone. Alright. We got it. Emails. It's the newest version of Eric's. Oh, it's powerful. If people want the school copies, can make them.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Does anybody want a hard copy of them? No. I'm good. Save the credit. Thomas, he broke my boy. We've got someone who trades So we're ready for two votes. Yes. Just need our last person. I can see her through the door. Really? Just tell her. Go get her. Hey. Go find go find me.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. She went by in the kayak.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: I think I took

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: them. I

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: will take it in the munchie. This will be a straw poll. Oh, there she is. That we approve draft number 4.2, the amendment draft number 4.2 to H four ten. So moved. Second. Second, anybody? Yes. Anyone? You are. All those in favor of approving the draft number 4.2 to H-four 10, please raise your hand. Anybody opposed? Did you raise your hand? Kenny? Yes. No. Because I'm looking for 4.2. Oh, you should No. I'm I'm good. I'm sure. On that part. I mean, the the the more important vote is right right now, which is I will take a motion that we report h four ten favorable with amendment. Second. Who was the first?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Me. Yeah. Alright. Heard. Second. Second. Okay.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Double sec. That's just not my good You

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: need the you need the motion for the second?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What? Did did you find what you needed? No. Could Oh, I'll take that.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Thank you. Arsenault?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Bowen? Yes. Kendall?

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yes. Oh,

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: sorry. Yeah. Harvey? Yes. What? Oliver? Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Rachelson? Yes. Christie? Yes. Perfect. I think that's what said. Dolan? Yes. And Karen is gonna be doing that one. So you have on your email draft number 3.1 to H642. The one thing that it does from what we last saw was it add the language on page

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's in our email? It's in your email from me. Yeah. We just got sent

[Committee staff (technical host)]: It should Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Got it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. On the top of page three, where it says there continues to be sufficient services. Okay? I think that page removed you so much.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I got rid of the first two pages.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Because we told

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you Is it Michelle?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Yes. Okay. We'll see you Michelle. Here. Thank you. I will take a motion that we approve amendment draft 3.1 to age six forty two. This is a straw poll.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So moved.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I had three people who said so we'll we'll this one to coach. Oh, Coach. And Tom was the second. And this is straw poll. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Aye. Or say aye. All right. Those opposed, that was unanimous. And now I will take a motion that we report H410, our last H bill of the Wait, H-four 10. H-six 42. I was just testing you. I was testing you, Kenneth. I was just testing you, Kenneth. H-six 42, favorable amendments. I'll take that motion. So moved. Second.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: Then vote to the second. Any discussion? I will be voting in favor of this. I don't think that we have gotten it all the way there. So I look forward to seeing what our colleagues in the Senate will do, and we'll be excited to see what it looks like when it comes back to us.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I said, I guess, earlier that there's a couple, three really important things that the bill does, even though there's one more thing that we still need to try to get right.

[Committee staff (technical host)]: Yes. And I don't mean that to be overly critical.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, it's good to have that on the record. Angela? Yeah,

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I'll say that I will reluctantly probably vote in favor. So I don't favor the bill. I don't favor I really appreciate the work that's done through this bill for victims in the police and other proceedings. But I continue to really struggle with our non data driven decision making when it comes to juvenile justice. I struggle with the lack of data, the reliance on anecdote, and potentially now outdated anecdotal data, which is somehow worse than regular anecdotal data. And it just feels the testimony we heard from Judge Davenport was really compelling that this, and that was based on actual numbers and data, that this is a very youthful and it's a very successful program when measured by recidivism

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: rates.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So just the more we nibble at it and poke and just it doesn't sit right with me. I'm worried about poking the wrong thing. Just like, I don't know, it just feels like we are moving, inching further away from a really big important decision that was made several years ago, again, based on brain science and data. And those facts haven't changed. And I know that this isn't attacking that so much, but it's tangential and it just seems like, yeah, I find it concerning, the approach, in general. For the for the victim offender victim the victim work that this still does, I will support you.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Okay. If I may.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, please.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I understand where representative Arsenault is coming from. And I think that what was being shared from Judge Davenport and then later Judge Harvey is the transition of the two of them on the council. And they're two of our most, reliable monitors of our work. And I think a way to better track ours is to continue to ask the questions, the data questions that we're able to through our research arm being CRG specifically on this project. Because now they've developed metrics to take those deeper dives so that we can get even more clarity that's data driven. So I'm hoping that we continue to go in that direction, because that'll make us all hopefully be able to see the things we need to see.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, and so just I guess a little comment to what Angela's concerns are and I understand that, but this is a successful program. I want to continue to be successful. I want there to be less opportunity for people to be negative towards it. And I think that one of those is that particularly when people age out and don't seem to be doing what they should be doing towards yet. And I think that's really one of the biggest things. And that kind of goes with the no show, which apparently we haven't quite handled. And it's always good to make sure if judges are using all sorts of different standards to look at a replication motion, it's probably good for us to give them the standards in a big sense that they look at the same thing. So I don't feel it's inching. I don't think it does any damage to the program. I'd say we need to focus on making it better, like the issues that you're talking about, just making sure that the rehabilitation services are available, that we're doing those kinds of things. That's kind of the way I've looked at this. I'm not trying to cut into this program at all. I'm trying to take away some of the kind of negative views towards it, I thought. So that's kind of where I'm coming from. Else? Go ahead. Arsenault? No, no, no, said go ahead. I thought I would

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: share my 48 questions and answers from yesterday. Okay, so I feel like there's been some good harm reduction done on this bill, and hearing Angela talk more made me think, Oh my gosh, do I want to send an eleven-zero message that this is all preaching communities behind.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Ten-zero-one. Right.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Anyway, so I very much share I don't know who's reporting it, but I just think it's really important to talk about how well the program is working.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And I have to dig deep inside and see how I'm going to go

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: about it. Yeah, that's fine. I think both, both wearing one vote. That's definitely fine. Thank you. Arsenault? Yes. Dolan?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Goodnow? Yes. Jose, yes. Harvey? Yes. Malay, Oliver?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yep. Hey, Chelsea?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Christie? Yes. Hold on. Yes. All right. So Ian's gonna report that he also heard me say earlier, please get the right report to Nigel as soon as possible with the And I'll just confirm, get Nigel that we have everything right. So thank you everybody for getting through today, getting through crossover. We did a lot of really good work, I think, this year. My build tracker has many places where it looks like you got through almost all the same three priorities at the beginning of the year. So next week will be interesting. Gonna be doing work on a couple bills that are in money committees that are not our bills. There's one from human services, h six fifty seven that has a little piece in it. It has a immunity provision. I think they're gonna vote it up today, but we can look at it. I've looked at it and and dealt that we're gonna have an amendment on that or would have an amendment. But then there's the landlord tenant one. And and that one we'll be working on next Tuesday. After Tuesday, I'm not sure what we'll be working on yet. So we'll see. We're adjourned until Tuesday at 01:00.